The Dialectics of Experience: Eliot’s and Adorno’s Constructions of Modernism as Responses to the Crisis of Modernity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disenchantment of experience and the development of scientist objectivism limit the scope of objective knowledge to science and relegate the human realm to historicist relativity, which leads to the crisis of modernity. The late modern return to immediate experience as a condition that is antecedent to dualism comes as a response to the crisis and attempts to cure the diremption of experience. T.S. Eliot’s and Theodor Adorno’s accounts of immediate experience and the possibility of developing a vision of the whole out of it are compared to determine which response is more consistent and handles the crisis adequately. This may offer a possible way out of the crisis and indicate the role that art can play in restoring experience. Art may either work to recreate the lost totality of experience as Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral does or show alienated objectivity as a product of experience as another possible route to restoring experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".